A recent BNC guest post, Public advocacy on nuclear power and climate change, stirred up some really useful ideas. In that post’s comments thread, it was discussed how we, as a concerned and engaged internet community (the BNC crowd, and similar groups like Energy from Thorium), could engage more effectively with the broader public domain on the issue of realistic and affordable solutions for solving climate change and providing long-term energy security. Right now, the public in most developed countries are either totally ‘switched off’ on energy issues (i.e., don’t care), or have idealistic and impractical visions of what is feasible (i.e., don’t understand). This needs to change, urgently… but how?

In response to this discussion, the following guest post has been compiled by my sister, Marion Brook, with help from another BNC commenter, ‘Ms Perps’. Marion, is — like many traditional ‘greens’ — an intelligent and well-educated person, and is completing a linguistics and archaeology degree at the University of New England (Armidale). However, she is not a scientist, and this really is the point of this proposed campaign. She is coming at this problem as an informed member of the public, and as a ‘rational green’ environmental advocate (Stewart Brand calls such people ‘ecopragmatists‘). She represents a key demographic that must be reached — and persuaded to ‘come on board’ — if the Western environmental movement is to develop a really serious and scientifically responsible position on carbon emissions reduction and sustainable development.

Part I of this post covers various underlying goals, and a range of possible advocacy positions. Your input and ideas here are really needed to improve (and possibly expand) upon this material — this is just a draft! In part II, which I will post up on BNC in a few days time, a first pass attempt at the FAQ sheet answers will be supplied. For now, however, we give only the questions. If you can think of other obvious ones at this stage, let us know. In the comments of Part II we hope to add to, and improve upon, the FAQ list.

The ultimate goal of Part I and II will be to create a static page on the top banner of BNC, as well as developing a resource that you can all use to get the message out there to the wider public.

—————————————————-

Our Primary Goal

Avert catastrophic climate change.

Our Secondary Goal: in pursuit of our primary goal

Remove the ban on nuclear power in Australia and include it as an assessable option in our climate change mitigation strategy.

Take Action

● Print out our posters (or make your own) and put it up in a high traffic area, i.e. not just on your fridge.

● Get rebellious, attend a climate rally carrying a pro-nuclear power placard.

● Speak up. Discuss nuclear power as a response to climate change with your friends, family and the annoyingly chatty passenger who keeps sitting next to you the train.

● Write letters to the newspaper, to your local MP or to Martin Ferguson, Minister for resources and energy

—————————————————-

FAQ*

Q1. How urgent is it to address climate change?

Q2.Why do we need nuclear power? Won’t renewables provide our needs?

Q3. We need to act fast, aren’t renewables the fastest response?

Q4. Aren’t renewables the most affordable option?

Q5. Isn’t it more important for us to scale down our energy requirements through energy efficiency and conservation?

Q6. Aren’t renewables our safest option?

Q7. Is nuclear energy fast enough?

Q8. Is nuclear energy safe?

Q9. What about radiation?

Q10. Is nuclear energy expensive?

Q11. What about the waste?

Q12. What about nuclear weapons proliferation?

Q13. Is there enough uranium?

Q14. Does nuclear emit more CO2 than renewables?

*For now, these are the questions we’ve tackled in Part II — details shortly. Can you add any obvious questions at this stage?

—————————————————-

Did you know?

● Renewables are failing to replacing coal and gas. Despite valiant attempts in some countries, non-hydro renewables have failed to replace a single fossil fuel power station worldwide.

● Renewables are failing to prevent new FF plants being built. Without nuclear power to turn to, renewables are reinforcing the building of new fossil fuel plants, especially gas, to “back-up” their intermittency and variability. Unnatural Gas (by Tom Blees)

Both Switzerland and Sweden are about half hydro and half nuclear power.

France is 77% nuclear power with some hydro, coal and gas.

So, if we want to get into ‘the 100 club’ it looks like we have four choices: conventional geothermal, hydro power, nuclear power or third world living conditions.

—————————————————-

A changing tide in nuclear power support

Today, the world has two really pressing problems — overcoming poverty, which demands industrial development, and the challenges of climate change and ecological sustainability — which demand low carbon and low polluting solutions. Increasingly, those who favour both social justice and ecological sustainability are coming to recognise that nuclear power is indispensable if we wish to avoid trading one for the other.

By way of example, here is a list, including environmentalists, climate scientists, union leaders, and politicians, who have come to support nuclear power as our surest response to climate change.

James Hansen – Head of NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (popularly known as the grandfather of climate science). USA

James Lovelock – Scientist, conservationist and originator of the Gaia hypothesis. UK

Warren Mundine – Chairman of the Australian Indigenous Chamber of Commerce. AUS

—————————————————-

Petition in support of:

Including zero emissions nuclear power as a clean energy option

The people of Australia demand adequate action on climate change. Renewable energy is too slow and too expensive. Worldwide renewables are proving to be ineffective tools in emissions reduction. Pursuing renewables alone will lead to dangerous climate change.

Your petitioners request that the Federal Parliament:

1. Remove the ban on nuclear power in Australia.

2. Include nuclear power as an assessable option in our climate change mitigation strategy.

Continuing to operate Hazelwood, one of the most CO2 emissions intensive power stations in the world , ignores the climate concerns of both Victorians and the broader Australian community. We demand the Victorian government take climate change seriously and replace Hazelwood with clean energy. We acknowledge this cannot be achieved with our current renewable technologies. It can be achieved with zero emissions nuclear power.

Your petitioners request that the Victorian Parliament:

1. Lobby the federal and state governments to repeal legislated bans on zero emissions nuclear power.

Like this:

LikeLoading...

Related

176 Comments

Greetings from Canada!

I just stumbled on your stimulating website, and thought your members might find some value in my own project, The Green Interview. Among the people we’ve interviewed are James Lovelock, and two Canadians who speak with authority on the world oil supply and the urgent need to take action, Dave Hughes and Jeff Rubin.

Well that is surely as proactive a plan as I have seen or had described to me to date.

It looks like you have framed it very precisely for the Australian audience, which is your objective. Therefore I would not rush to extend your set of question in the FAQ beyond what you have at the moment.

Topics like energy security are of extreme importance in Europe and the States, I don’t see it as being an area of much concern to Oz at the moment. Thus there is little to be gained diluting your message to cover all bases. The answer “that doesn’t apply here” is a valid one, and can be used to redirect the discussion where you want.

As well, standing on local strengths is a legitimate position. For example on the question of uranium supplies becoming short, the reply that “we are holding a quarter of the world’s known reserves” may be sufficient.

The real bad habit we all seem to have is not keeping the message simple enough, and trying to explain everything rather than deflect when it is appropriate. Avoid that and you are going to reach more people.

Supporters of nuclear power come from all walks of life and from across the political spectrum.

That may be so but the list of people you offer as evidence all appear to be politically neutral or from the progressive left. Can’t you find an anti abortion conservative bishop that supports nuclear? Perhaps the list you have is designed to neutralise the claim that nuclear power is right wing but is that really the problem?

As an aside it would be nice to see a list of political parties that are sympathetic to nuclear. As far as I know it is only the LDP and the Liberal Party. Are there any others?

Good post Marion. First a question. How exactly are Ethiopia, Cameroon
and the like generating electricity? I knew they didn’t have much, but what
they have is being generated some how. Biomass burning?

The posters need a graphic designer. Graphic designers usually cost
money. I’ll chip in $100. If enough people stump up $100 we could get
a good designer + enough for a print run and do the job properly. I’m
not sure how Barry feels about BNC becoming a hub for this, but it would
also help to have a financial hub … an Incorporated body, a bank account,
a paypal account and a website to take donations. The incorporated body
needs a constitution … preferably simple, no members and a fixed board
of just a couple of people. That way the posters can come out at election
time (in particular) with an authorised by: label (required by law).

First things first. A good poster + print run + people to distribute said posters.

Oh, before I forget … Barry’s previous post was so positive it made
some of us forget that we still have a long way to go on the basic
issue of acknowledging that AGW is a problem, here is a
timely reminder of that:

Nucleus 92 Inc. already fulfills most of the reqjuirements put forward by Geoff. We’ll press ahead with our plans as circumstances permit. They’ll be pretty similar to what Marion and Ms Perps are doing here.

One concious decision I’ve made for N92 policy which will give it a different emphasis to the BNC group is that we will concentrate much more thoroughly on promoting the virtues of nuclear power and less on attacking the renewables position. Renewables will only be mentioned briefly and in passing, and we don’t intend to be drawn into a battle on the enemy’s territory.

All of us might do well to talk perhaps a bit less to each other and more directly to others.

There are multiple strategies for engaging on the nuclear issue in different forums. We definitely need to invite inquiry from others by triggering responses with the kinds of posters Barry suggests.

For journalists, I urge nuclear energy advocates to write respectful, fact-and-link-infused communications directly when they “get it wrong” in the myriad conventional ways that are common.

Although it may seem like nothing is changing, perspectives are changing, and will change, if we insist, respectfully, on the facts. and provide a path to more thorough thinking about energy options. We don’t have to convince everyone, and certainly will not, but we should count no-one out. Engage and do your best to convince, and then do it again, and again, no matter how futile it may seem. If the person(s) you are communicating with will not listen, someone else may be, and by repeated effort you may develop more convincing ways of communicating. No quitting.

It is left-of-centre people whose doubts about nuclear power are strongest. Enemies of nuclear power are never going to attack it as some sort of left-wing pipe dream.

Adding an anti-abortion conservative bishop (if one could be found) to the endorsers would at best make no difference and it might even be an own goal. You don’t really want to hand that kind of weapon (you’re in a coalition with Cardinal Misogynist) to the hardened anti-nuclear greens.

Incidentally, just to clarify, I’m not afraid of losing any battle with ‘renewables’ advocates, but not going out and taking them on is more a meta-strategy for de-legitimising their position in the public mind, much as historians of the French revolution don’t go out of their way denouncing the role of the Illuminati according to nutbar conspiricy theorists.

Ewen – I don’t disagree however when somebody says something has support from across the political spectrum and offers evidence it would seem necessary to provide examples from across the political spectrum. And if you only cite half the spectrum because that is the half you are targetting then aren’t you at the same time tacitly suggesting that nuclear is a right wing idea.

If you want to target the left then I’d do it by tacitly talking about how the social democrats in France are achieving great things for the environment by having a strong government intitative in favour of nuclear. And how the central planners of China are in environmental terms leaving the lassiez faire west for dead by rolling out nuclear power plants. This isn’t a message that would resonate with a lassiez faire libertarian such as me but I would have thought it was a better way to pitch the message to the left. In short you want to appeal to peoples pre existing biases even as you seek to erode one of them.

I think there would be some useful publicity in running a political party called something like “Nuclear Greens”. It only takes 500 signatures and a constitution to register a political party. The Greens would appeal regarding the name (creating publicity) but would lose. The ballots would put the idea in front of voters who often pick party votes purely on the apeal of the name. Any agro you cause to the Greens is more publicity for the cause.

The single most effective action Australia could take to reduce global GHG emissions would be to cut coal exports. The 2009 numbers if I roughly recall were domestic black coal 90 Mt, brown coal 70 Mt and black coal exports 260 Mt split between thermal and coking coal. Thus an across the board coal cutback will have a 3:1 effect if it includes exports.

Some will say coal buyers can get coal from Colombia dug with child labour. Perhaps some thermal coal from Indonesia and coking coal from South Africa. Let the coal buyers do that. Instead the Rudd govt is using taxpayer money to build more rail lines and loading terminals to speed up coal exports.

I suggest the Australian govt is a brazen liar about wanting to reduce global GHGs. I’m sure we’ll get NP one day after every other developed country has given us a lead. So we’re not only liars but pack followers not leaders.

Hi all,
I love the grassroots activist approach. One of the exciting things hen we first started up Sydney Peak Oil was the feeling of potential froma growing network as peak oil was just going viral then (way back in 2004). Using the power of networks within 6 month’s we had run a peak oil presentation for the minority parties of the NSW Legislative Chamber (“Upper House”).

So you never know whom a catchy poster is going to draw in.

In that spirit I think I’ll try and get my better half to whip up something sometime soon (but we are frantically busy this month). I like your slogans, but tarting them up with some design would always help.

(General global warming destruction on the first poster, a cooking planet, all that stuff, and a big coal plant + renewables on the second).

Also, tear-off tabs are essential!

I wonder if other posters can attack the usual objections. (Like the uninformed prejudices I used to carry around like so much dead weight?)

Counter-intuitive posters that make people stop and read… posters like,

“Solve nuclear waste BY BUILDING MORE NUKES!?”
(That will get some greenies thinking the poster is attacking some government pro-nuke proposal, but then subtext explains IFR’s can close uranium mines and run the world for 500 years of today’s waste).

Barry,
The “Did you know” statements are at best misleading and worst dishonestRenewables are failing to replacing coal and gas
Why exclude hydro and geothermal? can we not say the same about nuclear for many countries( China, US)Renewables are failing to reduce emissions.
The 100 club shows that all but one (France) of those countries gets a large part of energy from renewables. And France is the second highest after Brazil( surely a developed country).
Why not compare Denmark(20% renewable) with US ( 20% nuclear) , the CO2 emissions in Denmark are coming from the 80% non-renewable.

Howes, you’re too late. The useless ‘renewables’ paradigm is beginning to be seen for the fraud it is. You know perfectly well that ‘renewables’ advocates promote what Barry calls ‘technosolar’, only including hydro to make the current stats look acceptable. You are even now attempting to conflate these very different power sources to promote your useless wind tech. Forget it. You’ve been seen through.

Finrod – have you considered taking over an established but dormant micro party and applying for a name change. The LDP could not get enough members in time to qualify for registration in NSW (where party registration is subject to very draconian and anti democratic rules) so it took over the long established Outdoor Recreation Party. A possible candidate party at a federal level would be Conservatives for Climate and Environment ……

~ does a quick google ~

Oops. Looks like they are active again and are now under a new name. Extremely interesting. Take a look:-

Good one Marion. I’d add to the “famous” list, Bob Hawke, former PM. He’s certainly an advocate of Australia getting into nuclear waste storage. The CEO of Business SA is also on side. He stated in the Adelaide Review earlier this year/late last year that “he hoped the SA government had the courage to develop the full nuclear fuel cycle etc” Prior to that, I had sent him my vision piece for development in SA which included an outline of what we in SA should do over the next 25-30 years. It was essentially based on our enormous uranium reserves and our demonstrably best waste burial site on the planet.Both are in SA as most of you know.I think my piece may have struck a chord with Michael Vaughan [CEO mentioned]. I met Warren Mundine at the Uranium Open Day at the Adelaide Convention Centre last Tuesday and was delighted to learn of his support for nuclear power for Australia. I told him of my 29 year old pro nuclear position and that for the past 10 years I’ve been an outspoken advocate of it. Since 2005 I’ve given many pro-nuclear speeches to over 2000 people and I can tell you, the majority of them are in favour of a nuclear Australia. I promised Mundine that I would be sending him lots of information/letters etc to help him get the ALP’s head out of the sand. I shall be posting it today. I wish I could print it all on this blog but it runs to 15 A4 pages.And that’s only a fraction of what materials I’ve prepared over the years. My point is that some of us, although I suspect not many, have actually been doing some of the things that Marion is advocating. Maybe more will join the fray now. I do hope so.

Neil, surely you aren’t serious. Are you implying that hydro and conventional geothermal are scalable in all, or even most, countries that currently don’t currently use these power sources? Did you even read what was written at the end of the 100 club text, explaining this very point? Are you also implying that the US stopped at 20% nuclear because it was not physically possible to go further? If you are serious, then what can I say? I’m stunned by your lack of wisdom on this point.

I’m in favort of so-called renewables so long as (excluding hydro & tidal) the grid isn’t more than 20% (maybe 30% will be possible). That means a minimum of 80% NPP for which I’m hoping thehttp://www.nuscalepower.com/
45 MWe modules (or something similar from another company) can be used for that part of load following which solar thermal doesn’t or can’t provide. These won’t cycle fast enough for peaking power and I have currently nothing better to suggest than OCGTs burning methane derived from biogas.

These various miniNPPs hold the promise of being considerablyless expensive than the 1–2 GWe monsters, per kWh, (factory built) although slightly less thermally efficient, so use a little more U per kWh. They have the significant advantage of being small enough to connect to directly into distribution substations, cutting down on new transmission line requirements.

They also ought to be fast to build. A 10 module 450 MWe plant would require about 2 years for ppp and 2 more for the onsite construction. A smaller miniNPP would still probably need almost 2 years for ppp but construction time ought to scale with the number of modules.

http://www.ecolo.org/
There is already a worldwide political party “Environmentalists for Nuclear Power”
Does anyone on BNC know anything about them e.g. their roots and success, or otherwise, in elections held to date.
Is there room for another party in Australia ?(There is a branch of ENC here) Could we join with them or would it be better to start our own party? I wonder if it is useful to spend time, effort and money on duplicating what has already been done. Input please:)

Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy (www.efn.org.au) look like they will be on the ballot at the next election. I know the President of the party (Richard McNeal) having done a senate preference deal with him in 2007. He is a very sincere and honourable guy. Seriously you guys should throw some weight behind him. Barry could do a blog article on EFN to help spread the word. Nuclear power will be on the ballot in 2010.

Finrod – with respect I think you are mad. Precision in micro party politics is a waste of time. Join the party and soon enough you could be running the thing. If nothing else people should join EFN so it can remain registered for elections. There is no law against joining multiple political parties.

Now in the first bullet in Did you know, the role of hydro was specifically acknowledged so I’m not sure Neil’s objection is fair, but it can’t hurt to make this clear, given the role of of renewables in places like Iceland and Norway (which the article directly addressed).

The point is that whatever solutions we adopt must be capable of being implemented everywhere and be scaelable, and plainly hydro and geothermal don’t pass these tests. Sure, let us use them where they are cost effective, but getting tied up in expcetions to a general rule is wasteful.

David:

20% is much too high. I believe that 5% is about the maximum we should consider — and that only because we have already built some of the capacity, so we might was well try to recover some of the sunk cost.

The existence of the EFN changes everything. In my mind, grassroots activism is about getting political, and then persuading people on how to vote once you’ve got the party infrastructure in place.

We’d me MAD not to all support this venture.

BNC is a great information tool to help convert (now burnt out) activists like myself on nuclear, but if you’re not in the courtroom or Parliament you’ve got a hobby. So posters for BNC is great to get greenies in here discussing energy, but ultimately we should all support EFN or just give up. Duplicating political infrastructure is timely, costly, and insane.

Barry – I met Richard McNeall in 2007 when EFN was registered as Conservatives for Climate and Environment. I did a joint press release with him regarding a carbon tax (google my name and his and you should be able to find it). I suggestioned to them at the time that it was silly to hitch their wagon to Conservatism when they could have a broader appeal. I’m so glad they have ditched the old name. Richard is very serious about climate change and very motivated. His party is worth championing. Having the world Nuclear on the ballot is pure gold in terms of publicity for the cause. For a moment every 3 years every voter in Australia will have to reflect for one moment on what it means.

BTW – thankyou for including me Barry – however my input was minor – confined to proof-reader [so blame me for any gramattical, spelling or typo errors:)] and research assistant. Marion did the work and produced the post.

Eclipse – you say on your blog you may vote for EFN if they field a candidate in your area. They probably won’t field a candidate in your area due to lack of support. You could fix that by being their local candidate. Other than appear on the ballot you don’t have to do anything. The media will ignore you. All that happens come election day is that you and lots of other people get to vote EFN. And lots of other people see the word nuclear and give it a moments thought. If you get more than 4% of the vote your application fee gets refunded and the party gets a donation from the taxpayer.

TerjeP, late last year, one of our Executive Committee members applied for membership of EFN. He never recieved a reply. The only news we heard after a while was the eventual revelation in the Canberra Times that EFN had applied for voluntary deregistration on account of not having 500 members. Their site has always claimed over 600 members from over two years ago.

If they have now solved these issues and are accepting new members, replying to emails and building toward re-registration, that’s good. Like I said though, I still intend to [press ahead with my plans. Let’s face it, if we succeeed in creating two pro-nuke parties in Australia, each aiming for a different demographic, where’s the harm? We can still cooperate end coordinate our efforts if we succeed.

Finrod – micro parties are hopeless with correspondance. I joined the LDP in around 2006 and never heard back. However I later found out I was registered as a member. EFN were at the Bradfield by-election so I’d be surprised if they are deregistered. However if they are then it is still much easier to take over such a party than to start from scratch.

Two parties for the cause will divide the vote which is a serious problem for micro parties. It also dilutes the pool of activists each can draw from. It is better to have one viable party than two unviable parties.

Ouch. Just checked the AEC site. EFN did a voluntary deregistration on 1 April 2010. Something you should never do. A registered political party, even if merely just a shell should never be willingly deregistered. At worst it should be parked and preferably it should be given away to somebody else.

Barry – getting registered is hard work. Once deregistered you need to start over if you want to re-register. To get registered for federal elections you need 500 signed and uniquely numbered membership forms all counter signed by a JP or similar. The AEC will then do a spot audit of 10 randomly selected forms. If the members on those 10 forms don’t answer the phone or some of them forget they once joined your party the AEC will reject your application. The LDP had more than enough members in 2007 but nearly failed on the audit process. In some ways quality matters more than quantity when it comes to membership. It is onereous. Luckily for the LDP we have a few members with deep pockets who were willing to pay for a full audit of members (ie phone each one up, confirm their commitment, check their details) and we culled the list before submitting to AEC the second time.

For NSW state elections party registration is a full time job nearly. They audit and reaudit. In NSW you also need every member to sign the government declaration of membership. Most people are loath to join a political party let alone fill in government forms for the privaledge. In NSW the LDP has taken over the ORP which was essentially a shelf party that was dormant.

I don’t think Finrod has studied the red tape associated with registration. This is a game for insiders. The purpose of the process is to exclude as many rival parties as is possible whilst ensuring the game still looks open and democratic.

Sadly EFN is now only useful for it’s mailing list. I’m amazed Richard deregistered because he didn’t start the party himself. It is actually a remnant of an earlier party which he was handed by somebody else and just renamed. It was quite short sighted to deregister. However perhaps he could find anybody to hand it to.

Thanks for that info TerjeP, it is pretty disappointing. It shows that part of the hard work must be with getting enough of the public passionate about this issue to even make such a non-aligned political movement viable.

Finrod, I’ve added Nucleus 92 Inc icon to my left sidebar, and moved EFN-Australia across there also.

Finrod – you don’t need 500 members to get on the federal ballot. You just need to be registered. But to get registered you need to have had 500 members at some point. If you run with less than 500 members and win you may be open to a court challenge but the point isn’t to win but to build profile for the cause. If you actually want to be in parliament don’t waste your time on this and join the Labor Party or Liberal Party instead. This is an insiders game you won’t win as an independent or via a micro party unless your rich, famous and very popular. And if your hung up on precision you will never build a movement big enough to be anything other than a micro party. Politics is for politicians not technocratic purists.

TerjeP,
the grassroots is for awareness changing, the politics is for legislative changing. So are you saying a micro-party isn’t the way to get the major parties to sit up and take note of pressure for nuclear power? I could wish that the Greens would have a nukie conversion the way I did, but I can’t see that happening… so our own party seems to be the way to play it. Anyone wanting to actually keep their job in Parliamenor the Senate would have to play by the party’s rules. They’d be muffled under the sheer weight of following the whim of the public mood, not actually standing for something and LEADING!

Eclipse – micro parties can change the majors. Pauline Hanson via One Nation is perhaps the best example but the Nuclear Disarmament Party is another. Both changed the nature of the major parties but won’t ever get to legislate anything. The story of the Greens, a grass root party that became a real player, is extremely rare and improbable. And it was a long process that reaches back to the early 1970s. Mostly micro parties just create the illusion of democracy and are otherwise irrelevant. The media will give you zero oxygen unless you are poised for power, and doing the later without oxygen is not possible.

The point of a micro party which brings together the words Nuclear and Green (or Environmental) would be for shifting the zeitgeist not owning it.

Finrod – I have no idea why anybody would do a voluntary deregistration but it is clear from the AEC site that this is what they did. If they had less than 500 members they should have just kept quite about it or lied if necessary.

Finrod – a senate run is tricky. A micro party can only win a senate spot with the support of the other micro parties. This is the tactic I was using in 2007. It is the tactic Steve Fielding successfully used. It is a tactic that exploits the preference system used for the senate. It is a high stakes game however because you risk getting your ideological enemy elected. You have to be prepared to dance with the devil if you take this route.

If I may interject here, I know that in Canada, maintaining status as a political party requires regular reports and such to be filed with Elections Canada, and the forms are full of warnings about the dire consequences of uttering falsehoods in these documents. This is to stop people from constructing shell parties to game the tax system.

DV82XL – it is like that in NSW. Federally it is much less onereous. However if you care about democractic choices being put to the people (or at least your particular choice being put to the people) there are ways and means. Long term though you do need members and long term it probably isn’t an issue if you are truely commited (ie willing to give up large slab of time and money).

I don’t disagree however when somebody says something has support from across the political spectrum and offers evidence it would seem necessary to provide examples from across the political spectrum.

Yes … I’d drop that. Everyone on the left already assumes that people on the far right support nuclear power. Indeed, that is part of the problem — that it’s so
clearly defined in the minds of lefties as a right-wing big business wet dream — in contradistinction to the “small and local is beautiful” vsion of renewables .

And on the right, people gasp in disbelief if you say you are a greeny or a lefty in favour of nuclear power.

Is Peter Cosgrove a lefty? In my experience members of the armed forces are mainly conservatives.
Peter Cosgrove is exactly the sort of name we should have on the list as he is not obviously affiliated to “big business” in people’s minds. I’ll do some more research:)

The faqs listed address a number of technical points and misconceptions. But I suspect for many people the question is more primal. NP has been wound into a narrative of sickness, war, mutation, cancer, degradation, waste that is radioactive for millions of years, a high technology artefact that is deeply wrong, a Thing That Should Not Be, a spiritual negative. In many cases (and I’m thinking of past correspondents here), I suspect the technical argument is just an expression of a more visceral rejection of the concept in its very nature.

The wrongness of nuclear power is a foundational myth of many green movements. It might be worth calling it out directly in this document.

Interesting TerjeP brought up the priest thing. The late bishop Hugh Montefiore served on the Friends of the Earth board for twenty years, and as President of the board for six of them. He was more or less kicked out when he came out in support of nuclear power in the light of climate change. Another one for the list?

We could do an anti-spin campaign, like the one that portrays water as poison and asks people to sign a petition against water.

“Big corporations are trying to use this, it causes cancer, it burns people, it causes blindness and is often associated with dehydration, heat-stroke, and death. We must ban it! It is EVIL!”
(From the “Ban the Sun” campaign we should start in a parody of the Caldicott’s out there).

I’m not sure including people with military ties (i.e. Peter Cosgrove) really helps us break away from the weapons proliferation perception problem. It’d just be another thing for the mad greens to pounce upon.

Thanks again Marion for your blog and thanks to you Barry for an invitation to speak of my vision statement. To put it all into context, I need to also offer my earlier piece, prepared as an opinion piece for the SACOME journal and about why Australia should offer the world a site for nuclear waste disposal. Here goes:
“The December issue of this journal described the enormity of the BHP Billiton operation at Olympic Dam and Ziggy Switskowski’s call for Australia to include nuclear power in our future energy mix. I believe there’s a huge opportunity for Australia if we wake up to the truth about nuclear power and its potential to help save the planet.
Despite Australia’s anxieties about nuclear power, the world is going increasingly nuclear and governments and energy authorities around the globe are calling for an urgent rise in world nuclear power generation .to provide energy security without greenhouse emissions. In late 2007, the US Deputy Energy Secretary said that ” the USA should work towards a world where nuclear power becomes the primary source of global energy” and that ” no person can be serious about climate change without being serious about greatly expanding nuclear power.”
As a former geology teacher, I got up close and personal with Olympic Dam in 1991 when I took my 41 year 12 geology students underground at the site. It was an impressive operation then with 55 km of tunnels, several 30m by 30m by100m open stopes and a six storey crusher 500m below the surface. We were gobsmacked!
Most citizens by now just how big Olympic Dam is. What they don’t know is, that west of that site, lies the Officer Basin- an old, stable, sedimentary basin which is the best of just a few suitable sites on the planet for the disposal of nuclear waste. In the SA desert, we have the world’s biggest uranium deposit, juxtaposed with the world’s best waste disposal site. What an incredibly fortuitous set of circumstances. I believe we should offer the world that site for the disposal of some of its waste. The technical problems of nuclear waste were solved decades ago. Current problems are political.
The Officer Basin meets the strict International Atomic Energy Agency site criteria better than other world sites. In addition, it lies about 350km north-west of Ceduna and not far from Ambrosia and Challenger and is as remote a site as could be found on the planet. It’s a perfect location for an international waste repository. According to Access Economics 1998 figures, the repository could generate 20,000 infrastructure development jobs, 2,500 operational jobs and at least $5 billion per year, including $2.5 billion in taxes and royalties from user countries.
I believe there’s a compelling argument for Australia to assume a major leadership role in the global nuclear industry. By all means, develop the renewables and other technologies [clean coal, geothermal etc] but let’s understand that we can never hope to keep our country powered without greenhouse gases with these alone. Only nuclear can guarantee that even when these other technologies are available.
Nuclear is the energy of the future and most countries are saying as much.

This piece was printed in Jan/Feb 2009 issue.
I developed that further in my vision piece later in the year. It has so far not been printed but I shall keep at them. I sent copies to BHP Billiton, CEO Business SA etc. Here it is:

In the Jan/Feb issue, I called for Australia to offer the world the Officer Basin site for a much-needed nuclear waste repository [dump]. Despite existing small quantities of high level waste [450,000 tonnes produced over 50 years from 33 nuclear power generating countries] and even smaller future amounts because of the development of fast neutron reactors [on line in about 10 years], the Officer Basin has the potential to remove from the environment for ever, all of the world’s nuclear waste. It could certainly handle all of the waste generated by countries without suitable burial sites including many of those to which Australia exports yellowcake. Though increased reprocessing will occur, ultimately there will be some waste to be disposed of in an environmentally sustainable manner. Deep burial in geologically stable, arid, sparsely populated zones is the preferred option of the IAEA. Commissioning such a repository would be an eminently sensible first step in the development of the full nuclear fuel cycle in Australia. Australia could claim the moral high ground on the nuclear waste issue and establish itself as a leader in the rapidly growing world nuclear industry. However, we will need some bold, imaginative leadership, following familiarization with the facts about nuclear power from our governments. Sadly, because of the hangover from the Cold War, exaggerated fears of weapons proliferation, not to mention the consistent misinformation, half-truths and often downright lies peddled by the anti-nuclear ideologues, Australia has failed to develop the cleanest, greenest, safest most powerful source of energy known to mankind. And this is despite being blessed with the biggest uranium reserves and the best waste disposal site on the planet. Australia really has been negligent in the extreme on the nuclear issue. We should be able to do better for ourselves and the world than just mining uranium and making yellowcake. What follows, is my vision, now 10 years old for the next 25-30 years of development in South Australia. It is based essentially on our minerals and energy reserves, especially uranium.
Step1. Government establishes a nuclear education programme in our schools to teach students the basics of nuclear energy and the enormous benefits it will bring to their lives including serious reductions to their carbon footprint. In association with that, the government needs to develop at least one, preferably two university schools of nuclear science/engineering, one in Sydney [Lucas Heights], the other in Adelaide[uranium capital of the world]. Government and BHP Billiton could mount a Public Private Partnership in sponsoring these schools.
Step2. Australia develops an international high level nuclear waste repository in the old, stable sediments of the Officer Basin and serviced by a purpose-built road/railwayrunning from western Eyre Peninsula coast near Fowler’s Bay? where a small purpose built port facility should be built to receive purpose built ships carrying the waste from nuclear countries. Such ships are the safest vessels on the sea and have been handling high level nuclear materials, including waste safely and securely across the oceans of the world since the early 1960’s with never an accident in which nuclear materials leaked into the environment.
Step3. Australia establishes a nuclear cogeneration power/ desalination plant at/near Ceduna to provide water for Roxby Downs/Olympic Dam expansion and Eyre Peninsula towns and power for the grid. This negates a Whyalla desalination plant and removes the perceived and probable threat to the various Spencer Gulf fisheries [prawns, kingfish, cuttlefish etc] from the release of brine into gulf waters where limited water circulation occurs.
Step 4.BHP Billiton builds or has built, its own nuclear power reactor to provide the expanded needs of Olympic Dam mine and the town of Roxby Downs.This reactor negates the proposed 275Kv gas fired power line from Pt Augusta to Roxby Downs. Two or three 165 Mw Pebble Bed Modular Reactors should be able to cover the 400? Mw needed. They are gas cooled [no water for cooling] are cheaper and quicker requiring about 2 years to build.
Step5. The port of Whyalla is expanded and the development of new industries including uranium enrichment appropriate for power reactors, nuclear fuel manufacture both based on Olympic Dam yellowcake. Australia becomes a major supplier of low enriched uranium and/or nuclear fuel rods to the increasing number of nuclear power generating countries and takes its rightful place as a leader in future world energy supply and use. As Saudi Arabia is the oil energy centre of the world, Australia becomes the nuclear energy centre of the world. We take back spent fuels from countries using our nuclear fuel and other countries for further reprocessing and the final disposal of any waste in the Officer Basin site.
Step 6. Australia continues the inclusion of nuclear power in our energy mix. With Leigh Creek facing a limited life [10? years] now is the time to plan the phasing out of that coal burning power station at Port Augusta and the phasing in of a nuclear one. Hitachi-GE are now marketing mid-sized [400, 600 and 900Mw] Boiling Water Reactors. Construction time is 34 months. Bigger reactors are taking between 5 and 6 yeasr to construct.

While all of the above is going on, numerous other developments in minerals and energy will be occurring including those at Ambrosia, Challenger, Prominent Hill etc all adding significantly to South Australia’s econmomic and employment growth and the opening up of previously unoccupied lands in the north and west. The future is bright for South Australia but it does need to get serious about getting the best out of our incredibly fortuitous uranium supplies. A government which wants infrastructure development, a secure, clean energy future, new industries and jobs for its people needs to rethink its hopelessly misguided, illogical and somewhat hypocritical attitude to nuclear power. It needs to start now.

Well there it is folks. These two pieces were included in the materials I sent to Warren Mundine earlier today. This is very important development for his people living in the SA desert.

You’re right about the question “Is nuclear power evil” – I think we have covered that in the “What about radiation question” with a link to a hilarious YouTube item on the topic – it covers war, mutation, dreadful monsters etc.I’m sure Barry will put it up in Part II – the answers to the FAQ’s.

Terry if you are going to build a new port facility on the Great Australian Bight it could take over Ambrosia zircon shipments from Ceduna or strictly speaking the sister town of Thevenard. BHP Billiton’s ‘Plan B’ to export uranium and copper concentrate to China presumably would have used Whyalla as a port. Clearly that vast region needs water and power to forge ahead, not only mining but aquaculture. Even the BZE crowd are enthusiastic except they think wind and solar will be enough. Gas fired electricity in SA has some severe drawbacks
1) transmission won’t reach the far west
2) Cooper Basin will run low on gas before long
3) CO2 emissions will prove nuclear critics right.
I suspect that Santos may have a secret plan to connect ageing natural gas fields to coal seam gas in Queensland.

Put it another way the current plans propose using a scarce fossil fuel to do part of the nuclear fuel cycle. There is a threat to ‘value subtract’ if inputs are constrained. Yet I suspect this is where we are headed.

As an aside it would be nice to see a list of political parties that are sympathetic to nuclear. As far as I know it is only the LDP and the Liberal Party. Are there any others?

Of course, to the extent to which they’re a legitimate political party, EFN Australia is a pro-nuclear-power party.

The (small and relatively young) Secular Party of Australia has a clear pro-nuclear-power policy;

and I’m pretty sure the Nationals are pro-nuclear power, and I think One Nation is pro nuclear power too. Many people in the Pirate Party community informally seem to be pro-nuclear but the party does not publish an official policy statement on this issue, and neither does the Australian Sex Party.

To be honest, I get a little annoyed with politics sometimes, because so much of it is about policy-making based on party dogma and ideology.

Instead of each party saying that they’re absolutely anti-nuclear or absolutely pro-nuclear, why doesn’t anyone ever say that policy on complex scientific issues such as this one should be made based on an informed, fact based rational analysis of all the facts and evidence and science that is available… with it being perfectly acceptable to change the policy in future if new or different or better evidence or facts or data becomes available?

Except Tom Keen, that Patrick Moore is firmly in the business-as-usual-climate-change-might-be-good camp on climate change, so again, anything involving him will be bracketed with Heartland, Inhofe, The Tea Party etc …

Finrod – I spoke to Richard this afternoon. EFN was deregistered due to circumstance not choice. They have 600 members but got stuck on a technicality. I’ve pointed Richard to this discussion and he indicated he would share some insight when he gets a chance. If you want a registered party on the ballot which is decisively pro-nuclear I’d suggest helping EFN get past the technical difficulties with registration (and member correspondance if that’s a concern).

Topics like energy security are of extreme importance in Europe and the States, I don’t see it as being an area of much concern to Oz at the moment.

Yes, energy security in and of itself is not an issue – we have plenty of coal – but energy security in conjunction with CO2 emissions reductions is an impossible combination in Australia right now.

Only nuclear power can deliver both energy security and emissions reductions.

Perhaps the phrase “without compromising our future” is too vague. How about “without compromising our duty to the commons”? Hmmm

Terje, Ewen – Something like this perhaps:

Traditionally in the west, nuclear power has been portrayed as a right of centre political proclivity. If this were ever true, it is certainly not true now. As the seriousness of the climate change challenge strikes at the heart of the environmental and social justice movements, a growing vanguard from the left are stepping forward to declare their support for nuclear power as our surest response to climate change. Here we present a list of some of the more prominent identities.

Supporters of nuclear power come from all walks of life. They include environmentalists, climate scientists, union leaders, politicians and business leaders. Here is a list of prominent identities who support nuclear power as our surest response to climate change.

This site stands out because when it comes to fashioning truly sustainable energy policies it makes recommendations based on facts and figures. If there is a better site in this regard I have yet to find it. The arguments put forward are based on economics, “footprints”, fuel reserves and things that are subject to market or scientific tests.

I welcome a future in which there are no more fossil fueled power plants while automobiles run on battery power but it is folly to suggest that this will make a significant impact on global climate. It makes no sense to act as if the main argument in favor of nuclear power is mitigation of “Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming”.

In the posters at the head of this post the solution to a real problem (sustainable energy through nuclear power) is linked to a non-problem (CAGW). While making this link will gain some converts it will alienate many more. Please don’t make your weakest argument the main plank in your NPP platform.

… a future in which there are no more fossil fueled power plants while automobiles run on battery power …

Not the only option, and other options exist that require no compromise in vehicle on-board energy — which is to say, in range, size, and speed — nor in quickness to refuel.

Recall, or learn: this montage shows the state of the BEV art, accurately scaled to a small gasoline car in the background. The EV can go 182 miles at 70 miles per hour before needing to be plugged in, but with the standard 110-V sockets we have here, that plugging needs to be for about 32 hours.

I would drop the first item, and change it for something along the lines of ‘Provide unlimited low-cost energy’

This because I think you should limit your campaign to underlining those factors which will be a direct advantage to Australia and Australians. While there is no question the statement you have there is true, it may not move as many people as the thought of lower utility bills.

You should also see if you can research some industrial projects that are not profitable there that may become so (plasma incineration, perhaps) because of the cost of energy to add to your list. Mind you I’m just guessing here, there may not be anything of note in this area.

The point is that I would spin this as hard as you can on purely local concerns, and leave the global benefits implied, rather than stated outright.

At the same time I would also limit the list of benefits to some major ones, rather than a big shopping list. The one biggest problem I find over here is just getting folks attention long enough to deliver the message. Consequently long stories about the technologies that will be possible with a supply of some rare isotope usually doesn’t make much of a dent, but the promise of cheap heat in the winter (as this costs anywhere between $2000 to $3000 a season for most Canadian homeowners) gets everyone’s attention real quick.

The synfuel one is very good, and you should point out that brown coal is one of the best feedstocks for this process. It may not get that industry off your back, but it will hold out some hope for continuity in coal mining.

DV8 surely it is better to make hydrogenated synfuel from bio carbon rather than coal. Bio carbon is already ‘in the loop’ of the biosphere and the combustion products of the fuel will be recycled. Brown coal should stay underground as pre-sequestered carbon.

Another problem with synfuel is that medium term it would be cheaper to use natural gas, either in compressed form or converted to liquids. As Pickens points out in the US the 30% of electrical generation done by gas could power a lot of trucks and cars. Synfuels like methanol and DME should wait til gas is gone or expensive. That may also make wind power shadowing impractical.

DV8 surely it is better to make hydrogenated synfuel from bio carbon rather than coal.

John, you are manifesting one of the biggest problems we all have with selling nuclear: we’re techno-geeks. As such we have a faital tendency to over explain, and fine tune our presentations to the point where we sacrifice the objective.

It is my understanding that the coal lobby is very powerful in Oz, and the idea of nuclear energy scares some folks that are concerned with their jobs. The poster in the leading article seems to verify this.

When selling an idea or product, it is important to package the message in a way that is not only convincing, but is also non-threatening, and to that end suggesting that there is the possibility that there might still be a market for brown coal achieves this.

Now I will be the first to admit That my knowledge and understanding of the Australian energy sector is incomplete, and as a consequence I may be talking out of my hat in this instance. However this thread seems to be about brainstorming ideas on how to sell nuclear energy in Australia, and I am tossing this out as a consideration, and that is all.

Personally, I am not enamored by synfuels at all, as once surface &seaborne transportation is freed from burning oil, there will be enough petroleum left to serve aviation for the foreseeable future, or at least as long as it takes to develop an alternative method of propulsion for that mode. But that should not stop us from using them in our propaganda.

Traditionally in the west, nuclear power has been portrayed as a right of centre political proclivity. If this were ever true, it is certainly not true now. As the seriousness of the climate change challenge strikes at the heart of the environmental and social justice movements, a growing vanguard from the left are stepping forward to declare their support for nuclear power as our surest response to climate change. Here we present a list of some of the more prominent identities.

Hmmm … still not quite right. We aren’t really asking for a political commitment. I think a sidestep would be better. We just focus on how we need to put old shibboleths aside in pursuit of the most efficient and effective way of dealing with the key problems facing humanity.

Today, the world has two really pressing problems — overcoming poverty, which demands industrial development and the challenges of ecological sustainability — which demands low carbon and low polluting solutions. Increasingly, those who favour both social justice and ecological sustainability are coming to recognise that nuclear power is indispensable if we wish to avoid trading one for the other.

[list those recognised as interested in both who favour nuclear]

The key phrases: social justice and ecological sustainability are an appeal to left-of-certre people that does not exclude those on the right, at least some of whom likewise avow such aims.

Help the developing world free itself from poverty, disease, and hardship without endangering the planet.

I think I prefer the end poverty thing here. Appealing to low cost sounds like a reiteration of the “too cheap to metre claim” and it also makes people sound selfish — and most of us, especially most leftists don’t like that. Being back in River City isn’t good either.

If you are going to appeal to centre-left voters with a self-interest pitch, enlightened self-interest is better. You say:

Right now, Australia’s manufacturing is not sustainable, and others are even now using nuclear energy to get a competitive advantage in the race for a sustainable low carbon economy. Yet with Australia’s ample supplies of uranium and thorium, Australia can be a world leader in engineering this future. If all of Australia’s stationary energy for manufacturing came from nuclear power, we would have the cleanest steel, aluminium and cars in the world.

The idea of local clean energy jobs is very popular with centre-left people.

The key phrases: social justice and ecological sustainability are an appeal to left-of-certre people that does not exclude those on the right, at least some of whom likewise avow such aims.

Actually I would say that most people on the right see those terms as code for higher taxes and socialism. It’s a bit like saying pooftas should be allowed to get married and thinking that your going to appeal to the progressive left. Words have baggage and the term social justice has lots of baggage that will switch off many on the right. Social justice is typically weazle words for high taxes and greater government control.

Ewen Laver, on 22 June 2010 at 10.31— Actually, 20% from wind is possible here in the Pacific Nothwest, being backed by hydro. For the contingous USA as a whole, 30% for wind+solar appears to be possible, at the price of massive HVDC lines running mostly out to the coasts. Don’t know if that is the most economic solution. (I’m hoping that miniNPPs will prove less expensive.) These percentages might be much too high for Australia with limited hydro(?) and only two(?) time zones over which to spread the daily demand curve.

I send the suggestion of stressing intermentant (so-called) renewables. Hydro works well at the price of ruining some rivers and tidal also works well at some price to estuaries. Maybe someday soon ocean wave generators will actually work.

I notice a few comments about Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy (which I’m President of).

Small parties (even with hundreds of members) are generally driven by the efforts of a handful of people (sometimes even less than that!) very few people. There are always things that can be criticised, but we are trying to balance work, family, life and making a difference politically. If you’re keen to help promote serious action, join us and even better email us and offer to help. A focused effort by less than a dozen people could see us re-registered before the election (and our result in the Bradfield by-election was quite reasonable) !

It’s worth pointing out that in the hierarchy of value, jobs that can be defined as “value adding” (eg converting resources into finished products for sale), manufacturing or engineering rank higher in appeal to those on the left (and many on the right) than jobs in services, hospitality and tourism and retail.

It’s a constant refrain: why don’t we make stuff any more; the right wants to turn Australia into a giant quarry etc

So presenting nuclear power as value adding and re-establishing engineering capacity is a positive move.

Terje:

To begin with, the churches, who are by and large on the right when they aren’t on the far right accept terms like “social justice” and “sustainability” so I’m not sure your claim is valid.

Secondly, on the day when the right starts attacking nuclear power as some sort of big government tax-grabbing social justicey left-wing project to give poor people access to cheap subsidised power, nuclear power will be a doddle to sell to its main opponents.

@ Galloping Camel and all,
There can be many different posters that target different activists who in turn target different sectors. So despite Camel’s Denialista concerns, we can afford to have some posters mentioning global warming, some mention the economic benefits, some mention the cliche technical objections that have largely been overcome (eat the waste, eat warheads, etc).

But please remember Camel, this website is run by one of Australia’s leading climatologists. Your plea against nuclear power being ‘tarnished’ by climate science just confirms the following New Scientist article.

Kalichman, feels that everyday reasoning alone is not enough to make someone a denialist. “There is some fragility in their thinking that draws them to believe people who are easily exposed as frauds,” he says. “Most of us don’t believe what they say, even if we want to. Understanding why some do may help us find solutions.”
He believes the instigators of denialist movements have more serious psychological problems than most of their followers. “They display all the features of paranoid personality disorder”, he says, including anger, intolerance of criticism, and what psychiatrists call a grandiose sense of their own importance. “Ultimately, their denialism is a mental health problem. That is why these movements all have the same features, especially the underlying conspiracy theory.”

Fran – I tend to think of churchy people as left wing so I’m not sure about your classification. I agree that most people on the right probably aren’t going to see nuclear power as a left wing conspiracy but there are plenty of right leaning people that will oppose nuclear. You want a message that says what needs to be said in the least ideological terms possible so that it can appeal to the greatest number of people possible. I think you want to take the politics, real and infered, out of it as much as is possible without compromising the political change you want to achieve. I’d say you might do a narrow focus on ALP voters but even then it is hard to find an ideological centre that can be targetted with specificity. It is better in my view to take out all the ideological baggage that is secondary to your core message. Banging on about how nuclear power will create social justice is neither necessary nor credible. All nuclear power will do is give us cheap, safe, carbon free electricity. Social justice (whatever that really means) is a separate challenge best addressed using separate policies which are quite independent of nuclear power.

…one of the biggest problems we all have with selling nuclear [is] we’re techno-geeks. As such we have a faital tendency to over explain, and fine tune our presentations to the point where we sacrifice the objective.

Amen to that.

We need to consider our demographic. For my part it’s middle Australia with leanings to the left. The right is largely on board. The far left is too invested in it’s anti-nuclear dogma to listen.

Middle Australia wants two things. Prosperity and fairness. They want to be seen as part of a capable, independent, conscientious nation who can hold it’s head up on the world stage and be proud. They don’t want to be the highest CO2 emitters per capita in the world but neither do they want to be an economic backwater. On that point, I think Ewen’s pitch for the cleanest manufacturing industry in the world hits just the right note. I’ll include that if you don’t mind Ewen.

As for finding a use for coal, I’m going to leave that to the coal industry. The simple message is, the coal should stay in the ground. As long as middle Australia can see their way to a low carbon future with life-styles and integrity intact, I don’t think the loss of an industry that’s becoming an embarrassment will be much of an issue.

Neil Howes on:

Renewables are failing to replace coal and gas. Despite valiant attempts in some countries, non-hydro renewables have failed to replace a single fossil fuel power station worldwide.

I wondered how that section would go down.

If you can point to a fossil fuel power station that has been sustainably replaced by non-hydro renewables, that is; without relying on imports, where before they were unnecessary; or efficiency upgrades to existing FF power stations, or gas to replace coal; then I will remove or reword the passage. The point is people believe non-hydro (or intermittent if you prefer) renewables can replace our coal. It’s a myth that needs busting.

On the term intermittent – with all the guff flying around about dispersed wind/solar solving the problem of intermittency which in turn leads to statements such as: Wind/solar are not intermittent if… I thought it better to side step the whole issue and use the more definite term non-hydro. Although it excludes conventional geothermal, it works for Australia since we don’t have the conventional geothermal option (and our hydro is limited).

Richard – based on our conversation yesterday you would seem to have 600 members but when the AEC did it’s survey of 20 random members it got a 40% uncontactable result. That is exactly the experience the LDP had the first time it tried for registration. The solution is to prime the membership and impress on them the importance of responding to the AEC and also to withdraw from you submission any members that genuinely can’t be contacted. At a guess this means about 1000 phone calls with a good concise script and a good data correction process. Hard work but achievable if you have a comitted set of motivated and able volunteers. At this point in the process you probably don’t gain a lot by having more members you just need to get the labourious work done.

Luckily when we did this for the LDP we were working with libertarians and they are much more civicly minded than nuclear power advocates. ;-)

Any volunteers keen to help Richard getting EFN re-registered in time for the next election?

Can I just clarify Richard — at one point in your development, the EFN was seen as essentially a wedge group created by the Liberal Party, contrived to score preferences from careless environmental voters.

In principle, based on my desire to support the roll out of nuclear energy, I’d like to help you out — last time I looked you were in Beecroft, which isn’t far away, but I’d like reassurance that the group has no organisational connections with the coalition parties.

Marion: That’s fine, go for it. Note Fran’s remarks because they are on the money.

I’m not so sure all of the far left is against nuclear power, unless you call the Greens the far left, and even they are more against nuclear weapons than nuclear power per se. There aren’t a lot of far leftists so it’s probably not worth worrying about anyway, but most of those I bump into aren’t hostile to nuclear power. Fran who posted above counts herself as on the far left and so does David Walters.

At the same time I would also limit the list of benefits to some major ones, rather than a big shopping list. The one biggest problem I find over here is just getting folks attention long enough to deliver the message. Consequently long stories about the technologies that will be possible with a supply of some rare isotope usually doesn’t make much of a dent, but the promise of cheap heat in the winter (as this costs anywhere between $2000 to $3000 a season for most Canadian homeowners) gets everyone’s attention real quick.

Absolutely. I think desal ticks that box here.

John Morgan – Do you think you could write up an answer to your FAQ question?

So many of you are helping with this, I think the page should state it was authored by the “BNC crowd” as Barry calls it. Thanks again for your help.

“But please remember Camel, this website is run by one of Australia’s leading climatologists.”

Although Barry may be devoted to the CAGW cause he comes across as someone who understands that science is useless unless it can produce solutions at an affordable cost. Thus he is quite different from people who use the power of government to compel “solutions” based on ethanol, wind or photovoltaic regardless of what they may cost while blocking or handicapping NPP solutions.

You call me a “Denier” because I can’t get excited about the non-problem of CAGW and yet I am committed to solving real problems such as urban smog, the pollution of rivers, affordable energy for the poorest people in Africa and much more.

Finally, no matter how many environmentalists may support your cause it would not hurt to have a few sceptics lined up with you. You can count on me for one.

Marion – I think your characterisation of middle Australia is pretty spot on. In terms of what to do with coal I suggest we use it to make electricity and steel for the next 40 or so years. Unless you think we can build a nuclear future with the lights off.

Ewen, your right of course, the far left come in many colours. Perhaps I should have said the green left. As a general rule I find the most strident anti-nuclear types come from the green left. They’re the wrong people to target. I say this as someone who’s spent most of her life voting Greens. It kills me that the Greens would rather go brown than give up on anti-nuclear ideology.

“Finally, no matter how many environmentalists may support your cause it would not hurt to have a few sceptics lined up with you. You can count on me for one.”

This is yet another reason nuclear power has great potential for climate change mitigation – many climate change deniers/skeptics support it too.

The main emphasis should remain on climate change though. A large majority of the population wants to see action on it, even though most don’t really take it that seriously. This is where gallopingcamel is quite correct – the science is fairly useless unless you get the economics right. Until you get the economics on climate change mitigation right (i.e. what is achievable in the real world), mitigation won’t happen.

Hi Tom,
what about peak oil activists such as myself? A few years ago I thought peak oil was so dire society would collapse before we could burn the remaining fossil fuels! (Admittedly this was a hasty conclusion in the middle of a family crisis that coloured my perceptions somewhat: but the real shock was that there were so many people with the same conclusion without the same family crisis colouring their perceptions).

Hmm, on the other hand I don’t think the peak oil doomers I know would embrace abundant cheap energy because it conflicts with their ‘energy descent’ Powerdown ideology.

Anyway, you never know who those posters are going to recruit, so put em up and see what happens!

I take your point about the Green Left Marion, but I do think we must at least try to get them to become agnostic.

My sense is that there are growing numbers who are at least willing to have a discussion that doesn’t descend into catcalling. When I was out campaigning alongside The Greens in Bradfield a little while back, I did get a fair hearing and some sympathy for the case.

If we could swing them to being neutral, the ALP would not fear being wedged on the left.

Fran
I think Marion’s post came out of her conviction that, all you needed to achieve, would be a majority of people (including Green Lefties) who would not oppose nuclear power, if it were proposed to the electorate. The beauty of this approach being, that the vast majority of apathetic voters don’t have to actually DO anything.

I actually think the number of people who would change their vote, either for or against a party, on the basis of the nuclear power issue is quite small. Except perhaps in the locality where you actually build the nuclear power plant.

Thanks Terje for drumming up support for us at Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy http://www.efn.org.au – much appreciated !

And fear-not Ewen about the wedge thing. I do not even know anybody in the Liberal heirarchy. Even the one guy I spoke to in 2007 is gone ! I have met the people from almost all the minor parties, and so has Terje. They are almost without exception people who are serious about a cause, and prepared to do the hard yards.

Put some real thought into helping guys. Blogging is great but there is a real world out there to convert. secretary@efn.org.au

Richard McNeall, could you detail the formation process of the party to begin with? I understand that EFN Australia was originally the Australian branch of an international pro-nuclear advocacy group, which later formed itself into a political party. What sort of consultative process was used to obtain consent from the membership for this change? How did it go? Was it a smooth process?

There was a recent attempt on another thread by the BNC Canadian whisky connoisseur to play down the coronal mass ejection scenario’s impact on power grids (he seems to say that as NPPs are more local than long-distance power lines bringing RE power eg Quebec hydro – or solar North African desert-generated power – to CAN or EU cities from far away, this removes/alleviates the induced voltage problem.)

Please note that the GRID bill, aimed at securing US grid security and specifically mentioning and defining “geomagnetic storm” and precautionary measures to be taken, has however just passed the US House of Reps.

This implies that any pro-nuke campaign in AU aiming at increasing societal dependence on the grid ought to highlight the danger to, ie fear for, the AU grid, and to propose solutions, nowithstanding that ice cores seem to reveal Carrington Events as in 1859 recurring only every 500 years. But that period is within the forecast consumption of current spent fuel by IFRs, is it not.

In 1859, there was no grid, merely telegraph lines.
Fear has historically always been a useful political tool in manipulation.

The smaller and more local the NPP, the lower the induced voltage risk, I would have thought, whereby the feasibility and cost of putting Faraday Cages around everything is not clear.

Closing, the current state of knowledge/uncertainty about what the Sun is up to as of 2010 can be googled in seconds.

There are other sources of nuclear power! and LESS waste to get rid of by far!!!!

I have recently been introduced to Thorium….. Thanks to similar radioactive properties to the uranium used to power the world’s nuclear reactors – and its by product, plutonium, used in nuclear weapons – thorium can also be used to power a controlled nuclear reaction that heats water, producing steam to power turbines that produce large quantities of electricity.

PLUS POINT: From an environmental perspective, the good news about thorium is that it’s far less radioactively damaging than uranium: its naturally occurring form, monazite, is said to be reasonably safe for human exposure, while the waste products from its use in a nuclear reactor decay remain dangerous for only a fraction as long – decades instead of thousands of years, by some accounts.

So Uranium and Plutonium can take thousands of years to decay safely, but Thorium does it in just a few decades?

Poster idea: ram one idea home at a time, and simply circulate the posters over time. One week has a poster advertising the waste aspect is solved, another emphasises cost comparisons compared to renewables, and around we go. I think any poster that tries to say everything at once will probably end up incoherent, and on the other hand any poster that is *too* thin on the detail will get rejected out of hand as pro-nuke big corporation evil.

So on the ‘waste’ front I thought something like this.

Newsflash: Nuclear ‘waste’ now worth $70 trillion dollars!
Generation IV reactors now eat nuclear ‘waste’. Rather than trying to store it for 100 thousand years, nuclear ‘waste’ is now an incredible resource equivalent in value to the entire $70 trillion dollar global economy! How can it be worth so much? According to Climatologist Dr Barry Brook, we could close all uranium mines because just using the ‘waste’ we already have will take 500 years! Nuclear waste: it’s not the problem, it’s the answer!

As I recall, I wrote that long transmission line were more vulnerable to solar electromagnetic storms, that does not imply that the rest of the grid is not impacted. However simple physics dictates that when a longer conductor is excited by a large magnetic flux, the induced currents are correspondingly higher, and thus the potential for damage rises.

While with good forecasting, and the proper apparatus installed the damage to generators and large inductors on the grid can be minimized, these events can cause transmission lines to fail more often in long-distance networks.

In terms of EFN and the looming election I just want to say that given the current leadership crisis within the ALP and the low public appeal of the opposition leader I expect a lot of voters to look at parking their primary vote with some form of alternative. It is a good time to be a micro party. Assuming you’re on the ballot.

Ewen – if EFN didn’t exist and the Liberal Party decided to bankroll it’s creation then I’d be heaping praise on the Liberal Party not criticism. However given the electoral laws they introduced I don’t see them as wanting more micro parties on the ballot. I don’t think EFN is a Liberal front, the idea simply isn’t that credible.

There is the normal minor intermittency of refueling and repairs which are brief and predictable affecting NPPs, and there is the chronic, never-to-be-resolved unpredictable and massive intermittency of ‘renewable’ sources. These are hardly comparable.

Finrod, on 24 June 2010 at 7.52 — There are also unscheduled SCRAMs, averaging about 1 per year per NPP world-wide, if I remember what Wikipedia page stated. So it is perfectly possible to compare the intermittency; NPPs win hands-down.

Barry, Marion,
Its fine to compare nuclear energy with renewable energy, but the comparisons have to be fair.
If Denmark produced 20% energy from nuclear rather than from renewable wind it would still have high CO2 emissions because of the 80% from coal.
The two highest poluting nations China and US both have considerable renewable and nuclear, you could equally claim neither nuclear nor renwewables have been able to stop increases in CO2 emissions!

As for Australia, we only generate 5% of stationary power from hydro but we do have considerabe hydro capacity and storage. Renewable advocates are not going to allow hydro to be excluded from the renewqable mix any more than wind or solar would be excluded.

Hydro power has nothing to do with wind/solar. It is an established and highly reliable form of power generation, recognised as such for over a century. Wind/solar (technosolar) is a worthless distraction, and its supporters are standing in the way of genuine solutions. They should be treated with the contempt and disgust they so richly deserve.

“If Denmark produced 20% energy from nuclear rather than from renewable wind it would still have high CO2 emissions because of the 80% from coal.”

If Denmark produced 20% of it’s power from nuclear power stations, it might have actually succeeded in shutting down some coal stations, rather than needing to keep them all running at full blast to deal with wind intermittancy. Big time fail there, Neil.

Neil, the point here is that Denmark, with 19% of its energy coming from wind, represents the world’s best result. No one has done better. France, with 78% nuclear, represents world’s best result. So, comparing best with best, which solution has done more to reduce emissions?

Now that Julia Gillard is the new PM, I’ll be writing to her urging her to drag her party into the 21st century on the need for a more realistic approach to reaching appropriate emissions reductions by putting the renewables, efficiencies, half-baked technologies etc at the bottom of the pile of energy alternatives. I’ll also let her know that the best way for Australia and the rest of the world for that matter, to address the emissions problem, will be for there to be a gradual phase out of coal and other fossil fuels for power generation and a world wide rapid uptake of nuclear power, including within developing countries. Energy experts around the world, including in Australia have been advocating this for some years. Could I suggest that all of you bloggers also write to Gillard , other ministers and your local members suggesting the above. Perhaps we should put together a submission calling for nuclear power to be included in our future energy agenda. Anybody want to join me?? How about it Marion now that you’ve actually got us thinking about positive action that should be taken to promote nuclear power. I have had a sticker on my car for a few years now which states “be cool with NUCLEAR” It’s been around for that time courtesy of my fellow members of the Australian Nuclear Forum, mostly retired scientists and researchers form ANSTO at Lucas Heights.

I doubt that Labor is about to try it’s luck with a policy shift on Nuclear Power. Certainly not so long as the anti nuclear Greens loom large in the polls and sap votes from Labor. The only heartening thing from today’s political events for nuclear advocates is the fact that in politics circumstances can change quickly. What looks solid is often paper thin.

“If Denmark produced 20% energy from nuclear rather than from renewable wind it would still have high CO2 emissions because of the 80% from coal.”

If Denmark produced 20% of it’s power from nuclear power stations, it might have actually succeeded in shutting down some coal stations, rather than needing to keep them all running at full blast to deal with wind intermittancy. Big time fail there, Neil.

I wonder what the baseload / baseline capacity requirements will be of future grids? The nukies probably would like to see a 100% nuclear grid, but the windies seem to be too big an industry to kill off, and why should we, especially in the face of climate change and having to kill off the truly bad industry, coal and gas and oil.

So for a while I was upset that my “Better Place” sticker said “My next car will run on the wind” and not “My next car will run on a nuke!” but it seems we can’t have everything. I want electric cars, but I also want a huge roll out of 4th Gen nukes ASAP.

So here’s the question: Given electricity demand will no doubt rise as electric cars come to market, but also given there is some flexibility around that EV market because they can be, on average, plugged in 22 hours a day and so it doesn’t matter what time the wind blows… there will always be a market for it….

What percentage of the grid do you imagine could be wind in a mostly nuclear grid? 20% only like Denmark? Or with V2G EV’s coming, could it be higher? Or with solar thermal mixed in, higher still… for most of the time?

(Then, hypothetically, we have that fateful overcast week that also happens to be ‘quiet’ on the wind front, and finally we see blackouts because the pro-renewable ideologues won the day, and the grid crashed for a week, and society vows never again and goes to nukes the way it could have all along.)

I see Senator Xenophon has picked up on the silliness of heat pump water heaters getting solar rebates. Sen. Wong says they are renewable since the air is a heat source or sink or something. Back in the Triassic coal was sort of connected with air and sunlight so it should get a solar rebate.

I have joined EFN and offered assistance – come on BNC crowd – get on board. Terry Krieg -a submission is a great idea – I will help all I can with that too if you decide to go ahead.
I am now resideing in the PM’s electorate :) – I may even offer to stand for ENP against her (even though I am a great admirer!)

TerjeP, there are a few serious nuclear supporters in and around the ALP , Bob Carr, Bob Hawke, Paul Howes [AWU Secretary], Tom Kenyon and Chloe Fox, MHA’s in the SA Lower House. We need to get on their backs and urge them to speak up continuously for nuclear. I know that Julia is from the Left but would like to think that she might bring an open mind to the issue especially if she can actually understand that nuclear power is the world’s best hope to ameliorate greenhouse emissions. I’ll be writing to her along those lines and will contuinue to do so for as long as it takes. The penny [not Wong] will drop one day and they’ll all wonder why the hell it took so long to wake up and join the world as it goes increasingly nuclear.

Everything I want from you is dependent on good economic management. Therefore:

1. I support an appropriate Resource Rent Tax. BUT, I do NOT support ANY attempt to apply taxes retrospectively
2. Do not damage our industries’ international competitiveness
3. No ETS until the world agrees
4. No ETS until the government has removed all the market distortions that make nuclear power more expensive than coal power.
5. Remove all government regulations that distort the electricity market (e.g. bans on nuclear power, excessive safety requirements, Renewable Energy Targets, Feed in Tariffs, subsides for renewable energy, tax breaks or any other distortion that favours one type of electricity generator over any other type).
6. No more waste on BER or ‘pink bats’ type federal government programs
7. NBN should not be government funded
8. Get the Commonwealth take over of the Health system right. It is not as it is now. It is a massive give-away of Commonwealth funds with no proper control or accountability for improved outcomes.

At the moment, my impression is the Federal Labor Government is incompetent at managing the finances of the country. My impression is that the Federal Labor Government is little better than the NSW Labor Government.

I think you are being unduly dismissive of heat pumps. which can make very significant energy savings.

To the extent that subsidies are used at all, I would prefer to see them applied to heat pumps and insulation in preference to non hydro renewables.

I am unconvinced by the economics of ground source heat pumps, but we are installing air source pumps in our business even without subsidy. For validation, I would refer you to David Mackay’s “Sustainable Energy Without The Hot Air.”

DW I’m not against heat pumps just the Orwellian doublespeak of deeming them honorary solar devices in order to hand out a subsidy. I think the reverse approach is preferable, namely to make fossil fuel based energy reflect its wider costs. That way efficient devices will be pursued to reduce costs, ie a lower power bill, not to attract subsidies.

In fact I’m quite impressed with the earth as a coolness reservoir. In January it was 40C here but the air temp was just 16C in a deep cellar. Now I plan to run a LAN cable down that cellar so I can read BNC three metres underground. I note the residents of Baghdad experienced 54C last week with no air conditioning due to power cuts. That could be Adelaide in a few years, maybe even London will routinely hit 40 in summer.

JN, I accept your response in part. The fact remains that , given a government policy of subsidy for renewables and efficient use of energy, it makes more sense to subsidise heat pumps than solar devices. Therefore, in my view, it is not unreasonable to consider heat pumps as honarary solar devices. I have similarly argued that, given a regime of subsidy, nuclear should be classed as an honarary renewable. I know Peter Lang would prefer regulation to subsidy but I am insufficiently skilled in economics to know which is to be preferred. However, I am certain that most here would agree that the current unlevel playing field is the worst of all approaches.

“Finrod – I don’t think be is much into blogging. Ring him up. His number is on the website.”

What’s wrong, TerjeP? He was happy enough to post here to stir up support for his party. Why won’t he answer a few simple and pertinent questions in a public forum? Politicians are supposed to do that, aren’t they? Unless, of course, they don’t want those particular questions given public attention.

I’m seeking assurance that when EFN originally applied for registration as a federal political party they had the consent and support of of all those members on their membership list they claimed as supporters of the political party registration move. I’d like to be assured that the leadership didn’t just take the organisation’s membership list and claim the lot as supporters without going through the formality of actually asking them. I would very much like to be reassured on this point, and now that I’ve raised the issue, I reckon a few other people here would also appreciate such an assurance. This question goes to the heart of the ethics of an organisation, and I reckon it well worth pursuing.

Finrod – Richard commented here because I rang him up and politely asked him to. If he wishes to participate in ongoing dialogue at this site it is up to him. I notice Bob Brown, Tony Abbott and Julie Gillard haven’t turned up to explain their position at all. Your questions are reasonable but I think you are being a little precious.

What I know of EFN is that in 2007 they ran as “Conservatives for Climate and Environment”. I believe that they contested in 2004 as “Liberals for Forests”. In 2009 they changed their name to “Environmentalists for a Nuclear Future”. I have little idea about how they decided to change their name but the website indicates it was unanimously decided at their AGM. I don’t know how many people were at their AGM but assuming 600 members and knowing how politics works in small parties I image that maybe 1% of the party (eg 6 people perhaps) gave enough of a toss to turn up to the meeting. A lot of the members probably only vaguely care.

Your concern seems to be in the creation of some pure democratically ideal political party that consults deeply with a mostly apathetic populous that likes to talk about stuff but never does anything. Fine. Waste your time on that if you wish. I thought it would be cool to have Nuclear Power in Australia but maybe we need perfect politcal parties instead. From my experience petty minded individuals such as yourself are in general a waste of time, more interested in choosing the right font and the correct logo than actually doing anything useful. If you can’t use a telephone you’re probably no good to the cause anyway. Happy blogging.

@John Newlands, your figure of 16 C at 3 metres (floor or ceiling level?) below ground when it is 40 C above squares only roughly with a recent statement I read claiming 10 C difference per vertical metre anywhere in the world. That would have given you (40 – (3×10)) = 10C.

At Coober Pedy, constant underground house temp. is said to be 22, when it is 40 above. But what is the depth?

Is your cellar ceiling insolated ie is it north or south side of the house? Could you in theory store root veg. at 0-10 C if you dug down another metre? This seems implausible.

Your concern seems to be in the creation of some pure democratically ideal political party that consults deeply with a mostly apathetic populous that likes to talk about stuff but never does anything. Fine. Waste your time on that if you wish. I thought it would be cool to have Nuclear Power in Australia but maybe we need perfect politcal parties instead. From my experience petty minded individuals such as yourself are in general a waste of time, more interested in choosing the right font and the correct logo than actually doing anything useful. If you can’t use a telephone you’re probably no good to the cause anyway. Happy blogging.

There’s a lot in what you say TerjeP. Politics is a messy game and never perfect — as if we all needed reminding of that today! But can we tone it down a bit? We’re all on the same side here, right?

Blogging gets paranoid and weird: I’ve lost my temper in cyberspace more times than I care to remember, so my advice to all is to take some deep breaths.

No need to concern yourself, EN. I anticipated that TerjeP would probably exhibit some such response. It doesn’t matter. I’m confident that most who comment here will recognise the reasons for my concern, and my sincerity and dedication to the pro-nuke cause. I shall continue to develop my organisation in an open and accessible manner. Should we ever reach the stage of forming a party, it will be one where all registered members are committed and active and ready to put their efforts where their mouths lead them… and when that time comes, we will be able to demonstrate our history and development openly. I believe that this will be a very important survival/resillience trait for a small party taking a controversial position.

hould we ever reach the stage of forming a party, it will be one where all registered members are committed and active and ready to put their efforts where their mouths lead them… and when that time comes, we will be able to demonstrate our history and development openly. I believe that this will be a very important survival/resillience trait for a small party taking a controversial position.
Then I won’t be able to join as I’m in a career change. I’m happy to be a registered member that checks in here now and then and maybe does a poster once in a blue moon, but more than that… I’m out.

So would you rather not have me as a member of your idealistic, fanatically hard-working party, or have me as a number on your books helping with the registry process?

Should we ever reach the stage of forming a party, it will be one where all registered members are committed and active and ready to put their efforts where their mouths lead them

Finrod – if you exclude all those potential members that are not fully active or committed then you will be doing your proposed party a vast disservice. Most political parties have about 1% of the membership active at any given time. A party of 500 members with 5 who are active and committed can get registered and then appear on the ballot. If you only want active members you’re setting a bar that is 100 times harder. It is equivalent to saying we could register our pro nuclear party with it’s 500 members but we’re going to wait until we have 50,000 members because we think that’s the right thing to do. Given that the Australian Greens have been at politics for 38 years and still only have 10,000 members you’re dreaming. You are unfortunately deluded in your political thinking. As deluded as those people that think windmills can replace coal fired power stations. You need to get real. My concern is that if I’m polite about this it will take you decades to figure it out the hard way.

There’s a lot in what you say TerjeP. Politics is a messy game and never perfect — as if we all needed reminding of that today! But can we tone it down a bit?

Eclipse – My suggesting is that some people need to tone it up. I know my remarks are cutting but sitting around saying OM is not what causes political change. If you want to start a book club then insisting on active engaged members is great but if you want to register a political party you have to get real.

TerjeP
Julia Gillard – new PM- is member for Lalor in Melbourne’s western suburbs – which is where I live.
Finrod – I would willingly join your party – if it existed. I am concerned that we are running out of time to get any information across in the next election, when I believe many people would like to send a message about urgent action on CC and the development of nuclear power to whichever party gains government. The ENF party movement is worldwide and credible. I believe one of the founding members in the British party is also a member of SCGI – is that correct Barry?
As such I am willing to accept that the local branch is above board, committed to the cause and non-partisan.http://www.ecolo.org/ International website.

Says the bloke who, seeing a small, controversial political movement emerging at a seminal stage of its dewvelopment and surely knowing that the discussions on this thread will be scanned by our adversaries, goes on public record advocating electoral fraud as a pragmatic strategy. Kindly cease your conceit of lecturing me concerning political matters. Amusing as it is, it is becoming tiresome.

EclipseNow, you might not want to join a party, but Nucleus 92 isn’t the party, it’s just an advocacy group. Feel free to become a member of that in due course if you wish. I’ll let everyone know when we’re ready to expand interstate.

Ms Perps, I regret that I don’t currently have a party for you to join, and I can understand the motivation to go with EFN for the moment. I don’t think that in its current form the Australian EFN can be said to be just a local branch of an international org, and I have reservations about the local org. I believe that the inmportant election to aim for will be the 2013/2014 election, and I hope to have something prepared for that. We shall see, anyway.

I’m hoping Nucleus 92 (advocacy group) willl be able to go national before too long.

Peter Lalor your formula suggests the cellar is more like 2.5m underground which could be the case. The threat of flooding may impose a depth limit so that 4m may be impractical. The host rock is a white clay. Results so far for storing vegetables haven’t been encouraging so I think it is better for example to leave potatoes in the soil until needed. A cellar can not only be used for cool storage but also as a refuge in a bushfire.

In my view, we need a very rapid transition away from coal, oil and gas fired stationary energy, in favour of nuclear power, and a rapid coextensive conversion of transport fleets to electrical power, with fossil fuels reserved only for those elements of the fleet where electricity would be impracticable (e.g. road-based heavy haulage and refrigerated vehicles). As much weight as possible should be shipped on electrified rail and even bulk carriers could be nuclear powered.